Long-run market-style research

Long-run index and ETF performance

Review the historical performance, coverage, and sample boundaries of A-share indices and ETF proxy series, with source and return bases separated.

Current conclusion

Descriptive market research

The index and ETF charts show different historical market paths. Their dates, fees, and treatment of dividends differ, so the numbers are not directly comparable investment results.

Evidence boundary · Index and ETF results describe market paths; they are not portfolio backtests or direct forecasts of future performance.

— — 2026-09-07

Long-run index and ETF performance 18-year A-share Market Style Analysis

Loading research data…

Sources, dates, and research progress

Research question

How do returns, volatility, and drawdowns differ across market segments and ETF proxies over time?

Evidence status

Descriptive market research

Next step

Add aligned windows, risk metrics, and ETF tracking-error comparisons.

Research summary

The index and ETF charts show different historical market paths. Their dates, fees, and treatment of dividends differ, so the numbers are not directly comparable investment results.

Research stage: Historical description
Sample dates: Index and ETF histories have different starts and comparison windows; see each series
What is compared: Index and ETF histories; each series retains its own dates and dividend convention.
Main unresolved question: Different periods and conventions prevent a like-for-like return ranking.

Read the figures

A change from 5% to 6% is 1 percentage point. One basis point is 0.01 percentage points. Monthly and annualized returns use different periods.

Gross returns exclude trading costs. Net returns include only the costs explicitly listed in the experiment. Neither label alone establishes real fills.

Data and versions

A single summary image with dates and limitations. No page URL is included.